The incompatibility of faith and doubt

[Michie]

I think there are many in the Church that absolutely have faith in God and feel the RCC is the Church Christ founded. The problem for most seems to be various practices and teachings within it. They question, doubt, and struggle but still obey. Isn't that a form of faith? Even in doubt? Which type of faith is stronger? The one that struggles and obeys? Or the one that practices faith with no doubts?

Holding to the propositions of revelation with doubt = opinion
Assenting to the propositions of revelation without doubt = faith

Sometimes I see it suggested that it is OK to doubt, or that doubt makes our faith healthier and more authentic. I agree that a tested faith is more mature, but a tested faith means we have maintained unconditional assent in spite of the attacks of doubt.

I sympathize with people's struggles, but I think it's important to understand that faith means giving unconditional assent to the articles of faith, and if assent is not unconditional then it is not assent and it is not faith. Doubt is a temptation, and we must never consent to it. I think of St. Therese of Lisieux, or St. Padre Pio, or Bl. Teresa of Calcutta, who were attacked by doubt but did not consent to it and maintained unconditional assent. They are examples of heroic faith.

Practicing the virtue of faith is like practicing the virtue of purity. Some thoughts may enter our head without our consent, but we do not lose the virtue as long as we fully resist the thoughts and do not consent to them.

I worry that the virtue of faith is not fully taught and preached, which is upsetting because faith is necessary for salvation.

I have gathered some references for discussion.

Catechism of the Council of Trent:

That faith thus understood is necessary to salvation no man can reasonably doubt, particularly since it is written: Without faith it is impossible to please God. For as the end proposed to man as his ultimate happiness is far above the reach of human understanding, it was therefore necessary that it should be made known to him by God. This knowledge, however, is nothing else than faith, by which we yield our unhesitating assent to whatever the authority of our Holy Mother the Church teaches us to have been revealed by God; for the faithful cannot doubt those things of which God, who is truth itself, is the author. Hence we see the great difference that exists between this faith which we give to God and that which we yield to the writers of human history.

http://www.catholicapologetics.info/thechurch/catechism/ApostlesCreed00.shtml​

Catechism of the Catholic Church:

Faith is certain. It is more certain than all human knowledge because it is founded on the very word of God who cannot lie. To be sure, revealed truths can seem obscure to human reason and experience, but "the certainty that the divine light gives is greater than that which the light of natural reason gives." "Ten thousand difficulties do not make one doubt."

157, http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p1s1c3a1.htm​

St. Thomas Aquinas:

Faith implies assent of the intellect to that which is believed. Now the intellect assents to a thing in two ways. First, through being moved to assent by its very object, which is known either by itself (as in the case of first principles, which are held by the habit of understanding), or through something else already known (as in the case of conclusions which are held by the habit of science). Secondly the intellect assents to something, not through being sufficiently moved to this assent by its proper object, but through an act of choice, whereby it turns voluntarily to one side rather than to the other: and if this be accompanied by doubt or fear of the opposite side, there will be opinion, while, if there be certainty and no fear of the other side, there will be faith.

ST, "Faith," Article 2 http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3001.htm#article2
​

Bl. John H. Newman's three modes of holding a proposition:

And in fact, these three modes of entertaining propositions,—doubting them, inferring them, assenting to them, are so distinct in their action, that, when they are severally carried out into the intellectual habits of an individual, they become the principles and notes of three distinct states or characters of mind. For instance, in the case of Revealed Religion, according as one or other of these is paramount within him, a man is a sceptic as regards it; or a philosopher, thinking it more or less probable considered as a conclusion of reason; or he has an unhesitating faith in it, and is recognized as a believer. If he simply disbelieves, or dissents, then he is assenting to the contradictory of the thesis, viz. to the proposition that there is no Revelation.

Many minds of course there are, which are not under the predominant influence of any one of the three. Thus men are to be found of irreflective, impulsive, unsettled, or again of acute minds, who do not know what they believe and what they do not, and who may be by turns sceptics, inquirers, or believers; who doubt, assent, infer, and doubt again, according to the circumstances of the season. Nay further, in all minds there is a certain coexistence of these distinct acts; that is, of two of them, for we can at once infer and assent, though we cannot at once either assent or infer and also doubt. Indeed, in a multitude of cases we infer truths, or apparent truths, before, and while, and after we assent to them.

[...]

Assent is unconditional; else, it is not really represented by assertion. Inference is conditional, because a conclusion at least implies the assumption of premises, and still more, because in concrete matter, on which I am engaged, demonstration is impossible.

http://www.newmanreader.org/works/grammar/chapter1.html
​

Bl. Newman again:

I must insist upon this: faith implies a confidence in a man’s mind, that the thing believed is really true; but, if it is once true it never can be false. If it is true that God became man, what is the meaning of my anticipating a time when perhaps I shall not believe that God became man? This is nothing short of anticipating a time when I shall disbelieve a truth. And if I bargain to be allowed in time to come not to believe, or to doubt, that God became man, I am but asking to be allowed to doubt or disbelieve what I hold to be an eternal truth. I do not see the privilege in such a permission at all, or the meaning of wishing to secure it. If at present I have no doubt whatever about it, then I am but asking leave to fall into error; if at present I have doubts about it, then I do not believe it at present, that is, I have not faith. . . . I may love by halves, I may obey by halves; I cannot believe by halves: either I have faith, or I have it not.

http://newmanreader.org/works/discourses/index.html​

 

[Fantine]

Human beings are such interesting, complex creatures. Some people have those "unexamined lives" that Socrates says are "not worth living." They are people of action--and they probably get a lot done that way

Then, of course, there are people so focused on survival that they have little time for doubt. I sometimes think of the proverb--"For one more day, thank you, Lord." They are so busy trying to survive and meet their responsibilities that their faith is an expression of gratitude for having one more day to get it all done. They have faith because they live in the moment, and those moments when they have the peace to worship, to tuck their children in bed, etc. sustain them for the next day.

So if we have doubt we may have too much time on our hands (or sometimes we are just reflective).

I find trying to focus on mindfulness and living in the moment helps dispel doubts when I'm praying. And, of course, living an agape sort of life.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

I think there are many in the Church that absolutely have faith in God and feel the RCC is the Church Christ founded. The problem for most seems to be various practices and teachings within it. They question, doubt, and struggle but still obey. Isn't that a form of faith? Even in doubt? Which type of faith is stronger? The one that struggles and obeys? Or the one that practices faith with no doubts?

Everyone struggles with doubts. They don't have to be omnipresent but they exist in times of trouble.
We are humans. Peter denied, Thomas doubted, we are

certainly not better than The Apostles who walked with Christ.

The scripture is there to teach us:

19 “You unbelieving generation,” Jesus replied, “how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you? Bring the boy to me.”

20 So they brought him. When the spirit saw Jesus, it immediately threw the boy into a convulsion. He fell to the ground and rolled around, foaming at the mouth.

21 Jesus asked the boy’s father, “How long has he been like this?”

“From childhood,” he answered. 22 “It has often thrown him into fire or water to kill him. But if you can do anything, take pity on us and help us.”

23 “‘If you can’?” said Jesus. “Everything is possible for one who believes.”

24 Immediately the boy’s father exclaimed, “I do believe; help me overcome my unbelief!”

 

[Jared R]

I think there are many in the Church that absolutely have faith in God and feel the RCC is the Church Christ founded. The problem for most seems to be various practices and teachings within it. They question, doubt, and struggle but still obey. Isn't that a form of faith? Even in doubt? Which type of faith is stronger? The one that struggles and obeys? Or the one that practices faith with no doubts?

I distinguish between doubt and the temptation to doubt. Our faith is stronger if we're tempted by doubts but don't consent to them. But willfully entertaining doubts destroys faith. I have had many thoughts of doubt lately, but I reject them.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

I distinguish between doubt and the temptation to doubt. Our faith is stronger if we're tempted by doubts but don't consent to them. But willfully entertaining doubts destroys faith. I have had many thoughts of doubt lately, but I reject them.

The point is Jared, that we struggle with doubt, as we struggle with all weakness of the flesh. Paul talks about the weakness of the flesh but how we have the mind of Christ.

Doubt is no different than any other of our weaknesses. We shouldn't be afraid to admit it.

How do you think Christ felt in the garden of Gesthamene?

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

I wonder what Christ meant in that moment when he screamed out Eli Eli Llama Sabhactani" "my God, my God why did you forsake me" That was his humanity in the flesh, though he remained faithful to the end.

 

[Jared R]

The point is Jared, that we struggle with doubt, as we struggle with all weakness of the flesh. Paul talks about the weakness of the flesh but how we have the mind of Christ.

Doubt is no different than any other of our weaknesses. We shouldn't be afraid to admit it.

How do you think Christ felt in the garden of Gesthamene?

But struggle how? I agree if we mean struggling against. If we take the conversation and substitute "impurity" for "doubt," it should be clear what I mean. Against his will, a man experiences strong impure thoughts. This is a natural struggle and is to be expected. But is he allowed to sit and ponder the lurid details of the thoughts? No, he is supposed to reject them and cling to his chastity. Now apply that to doubt and faith, and that is what I mean.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

But struggle how? I agree if we mean struggling against. If we take the conversation and substitute "impurity" for "doubt," it should be clear what I mean. Against his will, a man experiences strong impure thoughts. This is a natural struggle and is to be expected. But is he allowed to sit and ponder the lurid details of the thoughts? No, he is supposed to reject them and cling to his chastity. Now apply that to doubt and faith, and that is what I mean.

But does man fall and give into inpurity? The answer is yes. Does that imply man is impure or the battle lost. No it means man in his weakness fell , slipped up.
So if a man has moments of doubt, does that mean he doubts Christ? No that means in his weakness and in all our weakness, we fell.
Did Christ condemn Thomas for doubting? No he he showed Thomas his wounds and made him touch, and said blessed are those who don't see and yet believe.

 

[bill5]

We all doubt. No human has ever existed that didn't. As others have pointed out, that even includes Christ. It's built in. There's no sin in that, and certainly IMO no sin in questioning one's beliefs per se..."kicking it in the tires" so to speak. But, as others have pointed out or perhaps alluded to, all doubt is not created equal and it's a question of degree..in fact it can be a great ally of Satan as well. As I once read somewhere: "you can plant anything in an open mind." That is, it is possible to be too open-minded...but that's such an unpopular notion in today's increasingly anything-goes world...

 

[bill5]

But struggle how? I agree if we mean struggling against. If we take the conversation and substitute "impurity" for "doubt," it should be clear what I mean. Against his will, a man experiences strong impure thoughts. This is a natural struggle and is to be expected. But is he allowed to sit and ponder the lurid details of the thoughts? No, he is supposed to reject them and cling to his chastity. Now apply that to doubt and faith, and that is what I mean.

Except that's not really a valid analogy IMO. When someone is wrestling with their religious beliefs, they have to "ponder the details." It would be silly and pointless to just go "I have doubts, oooooh don't think about them!" and basically jam their fingers in their ears. IMO one should face those doubts openly and honestly.

 

[Fantine]

Doubt is a luxury for those who have the time to do it.

When I was on a mission trip, did I see the nuns who ran the orphanage, washing all clothes and dishes by hand, peeling and mashing 100 potatoes by hand, etc. doubting?

Were they listening to speakers on the Cosmic Christ like the sisters at the LCWR Conference? Of course not, because they don't have the luxury of time to doubt.

So to me it's perfectly valid dealing with doubt by leading a purpose-driven life, as most people have done throughout history.

The Roman slaves weren't the ones who doubted Christianity--it was the people they served, the ones with time on their hands, who did.

 

[Armoured]

To OP, if you tell me you believe everything our religion preaches without any doubts, either you haven't understood what our religion teaches, or you have some sort of psychological issue.

 

[Jared R]

To OP, if you tell me you believe everything our religion preaches without any doubts, either you haven't understood what our religion teaches, or you have some sort of psychological issue.

Or I have the supernatural certitude of faith? I don't need every jot and tittle proved 100% for me to believe 100%. Yes, I try to understand the "why" behind everything, but my having all the answers isn't a prerequisite for certainty.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Imagine that you are having a conversation with a rude coworker. He points out that there are many times throughout the day where your wife is unaccounted for. Not enough to be suspicious in and of itself, but enough for it to be possible for her to be having an affair. As he goes on you are forced to admit to yourself: it is possible. What's more, there is no real way to prove whether what he is saying is true without spying on your wife 24 hours a day. Whatever she says, it's possible that it is a lie.

But you also know that you love your wife, and your wife has demonstrated her faithfulness towards you time and time again in other areas.

If you are a good husband, you dismiss the doubts that have planted in your mind. Not because they are something that you can disprove conclusively, nor because you are blindly assuming that your wife is faithful to you without reason. But you have enough trust in your wife to be satisfied that she would not do such things, even without having absolute proof.

In the same way we may not be able to conclusively disprove every doubt that we have about Church teaching, especially if we are not trained in theology. But we can trust the Church in faith, (though not a blind faith), and from there decide that even if we do not ocmpletely understand a dogma of the Church, the Church is probably not steering us wrong, and therefore give our assent to the dogma anyway.

 

[Michie]

This has turned out to be a very interesting and informative thread. Thanks Jared!

 

[Mountain_Girl406]

Interesting analogy, but it's the extraordinary claims that require the best evidence and should be doubted in cases of little to no evidence. In your analogy, if the spouse in question has a track record of being true and the marriage is solid, then the claim of an affair is somewhat extraordinary and would require much better evidence than a few gaps in the daily calendar. The right move would be to trust the spouse and doubt the rude coworker.
Now if the marriage was rocky, and previous affairs had occurred, then the coworker ' s claim of a new affair isn't extraordinary and might require little evidence to be convincing.

The question of faith in anything supernatural, or specifically a supernatural intillegent being who created the universe, or more specifically the Christian God, who created the universe and has a personal relationship with His creation strikes me as an extraordinary claim. That's why it's difficult to avoid doubt.

Imagine that you are having a conversation with a rude coworker. He points out that there are many times throughout the day where your wife is unaccounted for. Not enough to be suspicious in and of itself, but enough for it to be possible for her to be having an affair. As he goes on you are forced to admit to yourself: it is possible. What's more, there is no real way to prove whether what he is saying is true without spying on your wife 24 hours a day. Whatever she says, it's possible that it is a lie.

But you also know that you love your wife, and your wife has demonstrated her faithfulness towards you time and time again in other areas.

If you are a good husband, you dismiss the doubts that have planted in your mind. Not because they are something that you can disprove conclusively, nor because you are blindly assuming that your wife is faithful to you without reason. But you have enough trust in your wife to be satisfied that she would not do such things, even without having absolute proof.

In the same way we may not be able to conclusively disprove every doubt that we have about Church teaching, especially if we are not trained in theology. But we can trust the Church in faith, (though not a blind faith), and from there decide that even if we do not ocmpletely understand a dogma of the Church, the Church is probably not steering us wrong, and therefore give our assent to the dogma anyway.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Presumably we aren't walking into this forum without ever having heard of God or Jesus ever before in our lives (at least those of us who are Catholic; I don't want to insult our atheist visitors). In some way we already know God and trust in Him. It is not a perfect relationship for any of us, but we do have enough to trust and have faith in God.

I very specifically chose the example of a husband and wife for this reason. We would not expect someone to banish his doubts about some woman that he has just met and who is only dating for the first time. That is why I stressed that we do not seek a blind faith. For all of us who have faith, we have faith for a reason.

Trust and faith do not arise randomly out of nothing. But they do allow us to quell doubts that we would have if we did not trust and have faith.

Talk of "extraordinary claims" rarely is productive. Often it is used to introduce the phrase "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," and it is almost always the case that "extraordinary claims" turns out to mean "things I find hard to believe" and "extraordinary evidence" means "more evidence than can possibly be produced." You have even noted that yourself: the claim that the man's wife is cheating on him is only "extraordinary" if he isn't already predisposed to believe it.

 

[Fantine]

Richard Rohr, OFM says that there are nine stages of spirituality, and that you have to go through them one at a time, so if you think you have everything figured out without any doubts you're nowhere near the apex.

Actually the doubters have progressed further.

The top level is mysticism, and you have to get to the point where you begin to relinquish your ego before you can have mature faith without doubts.

He says that the adolescent level of faith without doubt is the happiest, and lots of people stay there.

https://soundandsilence.wordpress.com/2010/06/04/rohr-on-9-stages-of-consciousness/

1 – Infant consciousness
Undifferentiated from mother, this is our first experience of the world. It is complete oneness, and the bliss of ignorance. In personal terms includes ages up to 2 years old.

2 – Magical consciousness
Between 2 and 7, as the child realises that it is an individual, it experiences the world directly, unambiguously, and magically. This consciousness, (parts of which Rohr suggests can be seen in the likes of The Amish and everyone’s favourite saint Mother Theresa), is only sustainable by separating from reality (I may be misunderstanding these examples). Its mantra might be “The way I see it is the way it is.” Its negatives include narcissism, pietism, and sentimentality.

3 – Mythic / Tribal consciousness
Innately dualistic, this stage sees deep group conformity regardless of what might be true. Dualisms include us/them and win/lose, and karma – you get what you deserve – totally dominates grace. The bible becomes a totem and the only “wisdom” is the conventional.

4 – Rational consciousness
Here myth becomes the victim of their rational prowess. What they don’t understand, they call wrong. Intolerant of previous levels, this spiritual adolescence results in doctrines like biblical inerrancy and papal infallibility. Because of their inflexible emphasis on belief and not faith, Rohr calls those at rational consciousness “practical atheists”. Most conservatives find themselves at either stage 3 or 4.

5 – Vision Logic
After Ken Wilbur, this is a pluralistic age of “universal scepticism”; everything is true, everyone is right, and we refuse to place our bets. Most liberals are stuck here.

6/7 – Subtle/Psychic consciousness
The separate self starts to fall away; this may or will involve the dark night of the soul. It is about emptying, of which Meister Eckhart said “The spiritual journey is about subtraction, not addition”.

8 – Christ Consciousness
The non-dual mind of Christ. “I and the Father are one.”

9 – “I am”
The fully integrated, divinised self. The “pure contemplative”. Holiness is “doing your thisness”.

 

[Jared R]

Imagine that you are having a conversation with a rude coworker. He points out that there are many times throughout the day where your wife is unaccounted for. Not enough to be suspicious in and of itself, but enough for it to be possible for her to be having an affair. As he goes on you are forced to admit to yourself: it is possible. What's more, there is no real way to prove whether what he is saying is true without spying on your wife 24 hours a day. Whatever she says, it's possible that it is a lie.

But you also know that you love your wife, and your wife has demonstrated her faithfulness towards you time and time again in other areas.

If you are a good husband, you dismiss the doubts that have planted in your mind. Not because they are something that you can disprove conclusively, nor because you are blindly assuming that your wife is faithful to you without reason. But you have enough trust in your wife to be satisfied that she would not do such things, even without having absolute proof.

In the same way we may not be able to conclusively disprove every doubt that we have about Church teaching, especially if we are not trained in theology. But we can trust the Church in faith, (though not a blind faith), and from there decide that even if we do not ocmpletely understand a dogma of the Church, the Church is probably not steering us wrong, and therefore give our assent to the dogma anyway.

I really like this analogy. The only limitation with it is that the "wife" is God who reveals through the Church. So, to continue the analogy, we can't even admit the possibility of the wife's infidelity, because of what we know about her. We may feel its possibility subjectively, and be nagged by those thoughts, but objectively there is no question of it.

I think part of faith is holding on to what we know in spite of the shifting reality of our interior lives... to make up our minds that "God is true and every man a liar" and stick to this despite moods and feelings and other parts of our makeup that are always changing.

 

[eastcoast_bsc]

Richard Rohr, OFM says that there are nine stages of spirituality, and that you have to go through them one at a time, so if you think you have everything figured out without any doubts you're nowhere near the apex.

Actually the doubters have progressed further.

The top level is mysticism, and you have to get to the point where you begin to relinquish your ego before you can have mature faith without doubts.

He says that the adolescent level of faith without doubt is the happiest, and lots of people stay there.

https://soundandsilence.wordpress.com/2010/06/04/rohr-on-9-stages-of-consciousness/

These writers make things seem overly complicated, probably so they can flog the next book. The bible can be read for free and is the word of God. The scripture holds all the answers. How amazing is that?